Woodward Exploits the Death of a President
Friday, December 29, 2006 at 07:17PM
Bob Woodward, assistant managing editor of The Washington Post and investigative reporter who helped uncover the Watergate scandal, has published excerpts from an interview with the late president Gerald Ford one day after Ford’s death. Ford, a Republican, the longest living and only unelected President in U.S. history, died yesterday at the age of 93. The Washington Post reported that Ford said his comments could be published at any time after his death.
According to the Washington Post:
Former president Gerald R. Ford said in an embargoed interview in July 2004 that the Iraq war was not justified.
In a four-hour conversation at his house in Beaver Creek, Colorado….
The Ford interview -- and a subsequent lengthy conversation in 2005 -- took place for a future book project, though he said his comments could be published at any time after his death. In the sessions, Ford fondly recalled his close working relationship with key Bush advisers Cheney and Rumsfeld while expressing concern about the policies they pursued in more recent years.
The Washington Post and Bob Woodward are misrepresenting these comments. Here are the four excerpts Woodward decided to publish:
EXCERPT 1: Listen
FORD: Well, I can understand the theory of wanting to free people. Whether you can detach that from the obligation number one, of what's in our national interests, there comes a point where they conflict. And I just don't think we should go hellfire damnation around the globe freeing people, unless it is directly related to our own national security.EXCERPT 2: Listen
FORD: I don't think if I had been president, on the basis of the facts as I saw them publicly, I don't think I would have ordered the Iraqi war. I would have maximized our effort through sanctions, through restrictions, whatever, to find another answer.EXCERPT 3: Listen
FORD: I think Rumsfeld, Cheney and the president made a big mistake in justifying going into the war in Iraq. They put the emphasis on weapons of mass destruction.EXCERPT 4: Listen
FORD: And now, I've never publicly said I thought they made a mistake, but I felt very strongly it was an error in how they should justify what they were going to do.
Curious how a four-hour interview, along with a subsequent interview the following year, would only produce these four small excerpts ascertaining Ford’s views on the war in Iraq, particularly since Ford has publicly supported the administration and the war effort. Perhaps these are only the excerpts Woodward wanted published.
These excerpts appear conveniently selective. No matter what the full context of the questions and answers were, or what the full text was, there is one thing very clear that is totally misrepresented by the media and Woodward. That is, Ford is not opposed to the war in Iraq, the deposing of Saddam Hussein or the mission itself; he opposed using WMD as the primary reason for it.
Ford said in the excerpts that based on the facts as they were presented publicly (meaning as they were explained by Colin Powell before the U.N. Security Council on March 7, 2003 or the President’s emphasis on Saddam’s WMD program) that he would not have "ordered the Iraq war."
Ford said if he were President, he didn’t think he would have ordered the war in Iraq. He said he believed Rumsfeld, Cheney and the President made a “big mistake” in justifying the war emphasizing WMD. In fact Ford admitted he never publicly said he thought the war was a mistake, but that using WMD as the justification was an error. This is a far cry from saying that the war in Iraq is itself a mistake. And it isn’t.
Pres. Ford’s rather harsh statement, “I just don't think we should go hellfire damnation around the globe freeing people, unless it is directly related to our own national security,” certainly lines up more with the compassionate liberalism we hear so much about. With this “only do what’s best for US” ideology, we should, for example, extinguish the possibility of helping the victims of genocide in Sudan’s Darfur immediately. All third world countries threatened with violence, tyranny or death should not count on the Unites States for help.
KEEPING FORD IN CONTEXT
Ford, a moderate Republican, in his desire to heal the nation after Watergate and Vietnam, proposed amnesty for all Vietnam draft dodgers who fled to Canada, Britain and elsewhere. It wasn’t until Jimmy Carter was inaugurated that a presidential pardon was granted to those who had avoided the draft during the Vietnam war by either not registering or traveling abroad. Veterans groups were unhappy with Carter and Ford for the pardon. One can only imagine how Vietnam veterans felt.
In 1975, Ford appointed John Paul Stevens to the Supreme Court. Stevens eventually disappointed conservatives by siding with the Court's liberal wing regarding the outcome of many key issues.
These points are important to remember while considering Ford’s remarks. Gerald Ford was a good president and an even better man. This is evidenced by the love poured out on him by others, especially his family; there is no truer sign of a great man than a great marriage, great domesticity, and the Fords had this in abundance like the Reagans and Nixons.
WHY WE WENT TO WAR
The war in Iraq was not initiated solely on the basis of Saddam’s WMD program, although it was a significant reason. Here are some others:
-The U.N. refused to enforce their own resolutions, particularly Resolution 1441, requiring Saddam to dismantle his WMD program. Not only was the U.N. impotent to do so, it was also in bed with Saddam in the world’s worst corruption scandal known as Oil for Food.
-Iraq tried to attack US Air Force planes over the No-Fly Zone for 12 years (1991-2003).
-Saddam Hussein attempted to assassinate George Bush Sr. in Kuwait in 1993. That alone is an act of war.
-Saddam supported terrorism not only by paying $25000 to the families of terrorists who’d blow themselves up while killing as many Jews as possible, but also in his own country.
-Abu Musab al-Zarqawi was treated in Baghdad in November 2001 after he was injured in Afghanistan.
-Saddam offered asylum to Osama bin Laden in 1999
-Saddam desired to lead the Middle East. He has attacked Iran, Kuwait, and eyed Saudi Arabia as well, which is why the Saudi government so eagerly invited the United States to use it as a staging base of operations in the first Gulf War. Saudi Arabia was threatened by Saddam’s desire to attack them.
WMD
With all due respect to President Ford, and while his concern over the basis for war is understandable, Saddam did pose a threat to the world. Was the threat of WMD really misrepresented by the current administration as a reason for war? The answer is an obvious no.
It was Joe Wilson, not George W. Bush, who lied about Iraq’s attempt to procure uranium from Niger. Wilson, retired US diplomat and husband of CIA agent Valerie Plame, created the “Bush Lied” lie by penning the now infamous op-ed piece ‘What I Didn’t Find in Africa’ for the New York Times on July 6, 2003. It was this op-ed that claimed the Bush administration “manipulate intelligence about Saddam Hussein's weapons programs to justify an invasion of Iraq.”
The reality as we all know is that Wilson admitted to the Senate Intelligence Committee in July 2004 he “misspoke” about the uranium procurement. The Nigerian Prime Minister acknowledged to Wilson on his visit that an Iraqi envoy was sent to Niger for that purpose. Apparently that wasn’t what Wilson wanted to hear.
Gen. Georges Sada, Saddam Hussein’s former #2 Air Force official and Khidhir Hamza, the highest-ranking Iraqi scientist ever to defect and live to tell about it, both stand by their assertion that Saddam moved WMD to Damascus, Syria before the start of the war in 2003. They aren’t the only ones who make this claim. Vice President Dick Cheney in an interview in April 2004, confirmed his belief that Saddam's WMD had been moved to Syria. Ariel Sharon, Israel's Prime Minister, said in an appearance on Israel’s Channel 2 on December 23, 2002:
"Chemical and biological weapons which Saddam is endeavoring to conceal have been moved from Iraq to Syria."
If this weren’t enough reason to make a case for disarming Saddam and his WMD program as a primary reason to invade Iraq, it's worth pointing out that even Democrats believed Saddam was armed and dangerous (video) and needed to be disarmed. (Dems on Intelligence)
The Joe Wilson lie, bought by a public who is simply not interested enough to follow the story to its conclusion…i.e, that he lied, not Bush, is what now still prompts people to claim that “we now know there were never any WMD.”
President Ford’s assertion that, if he were president, he "would have maximized our effort through sanctions, through restrictions, whatever, to find another answer" is a great gesture, but a gesture only. The United Nations failed for 12 years to enforce their resolutions while Iraqis were victimized by the Oil for Food scandal and was totally unable to gain any ground through sanctions, restrictions or any other means. The only way to handle Saddam was through the means he respected: might. War was the only way, the right way and the necessary way to make Saddam comply. History is proving this here on the eve of Saddam’s execution.
The Washington post reported that "Former President Gerald R. Ford said in an embargoed interview in July 2004 that the Iraq war was not justified." According the excerpts from Bob Woodward, this is does not at all represent the truth of Ford's comments. Perhaps the coming months will expose the motive of Woodward and the Washington Post for misrepresenting the former president's words and why the excerpts appear selective.
Trackback URL:
http://amyproctor.squarespace.com/blog/trackback/841338
Bush, Iraq, WMD, Wilson/Plame 
View Printer Friendly Version
Email Article to Friend
Reader Comments (22)
god bless bob woodward and a free press.
damn the lying, warmongering chimp to hell.
KEvron
KEvron, I'm happy to announce that you are one of the few, the proud, the banned. Don't talk about my commander in chief that way. Your C-I-C clearly is Stalin.
A lot of cut and pasting of the facts and comments by former President Ford will be the norm in the days to come by many in the MSM.
Great post, Amy...
AubreyJ.........
"Your C-I-C clearly is Stalin."
Or NAMBLA.
God bless the free press and free speech, Amen! It allows us to blog about liberal media hacks like Woodward with obvious political agendas, and expose them.
Amy,
Saddam Hussein did not allow Abu Musab al-Zarqawi to be treated in Baghdad (in fact he tried to capture him), nor did he offer Osama bin Laden asylum. A report released in September 2006 by the Senate Intelligence Committee refuted both those claims and found that there was no established relationship between al-Qaeda leaders and Saddam Hussein before the war.
http://www.fas.org/irp/congress/2006_rpt/srpt109-331.pdf
Silke, I'm still reading through the report but fail to see how the report, as it addresses those issues, denies any relationship. Relationship and association is not synonymous with "a good working relationship". Al-Qaeda is a radical sect of Sunni called Wahhabi. They are not enemies but reluctant brothers (as I understand it). From what I've read so far, the report did not specifically deny my charges. The assertions in my entry still hold even if the Senate report is true. I'm not sure that the two opposed.
DELETED
DELETED
You are the one who comes on here talking like one of the pedophile apologists that trolls absolute zero. Then you complain when you get called on it. If you don't want to be identified as a pedophile don't talk like one, it's that simple. Then you can play the Ninth Commandment card. You were the one who said (not in so many words but your words easily give the impression) that sex with children is okay.
Amy, your claims that Saddam Hussein allowed Zarqawi to be treated in Baghdad and that he offered Osama bin Ladin asylum simply are not true.
“Conclusion 1: Postwar findings indicate that the CIA assessment that the relationship between Iraq and al-Qa’ida resembled “two independent actors trying to exploit each other, “ accurately characterized bin Ladin’s actions, but not those of Saddam Hussein. Postwar findings indicate that Saddam Hussein was distrustful of al-Qa’ida and viewed Islamic extremists as a threat to his regime, refusing all requests from al-Qa’ida to provide material or operational support.” (page 105)
“Conclusion 5: Postwar information supports the Intelligence Community’s assessments that Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, using an alias, and members of his network, were present in Baghdad in 2002. Postwar findings indicate al-Zarqawi was in Baghdad from May 2002 until late November 2002, when he traveled to Iran and northeastern Iraq. Prewar assessments expressed uncertainty about Iraq’s complicity in their presence, but overestimated the Iraqi regime’s capabilities to locate them. Postwar information indicates that Saddam Hussein attempted, unsuccessfully, to locate and capture al-Zarqawi and that the regime did not have a relationship with, harbor, or turn a blind eye toward Zarqawi.” (page 109)
http://www.fas.org/irp/congress/2006_rpt/srpt109-331.pdf
DELETED
DELETED
DELETED
Silke, you know what, technically you're correct. I'll need to change that. As far as we know Saddam didn't "allow" or "not allow" al-Zarqawi. I may be right. Saddam supported al-Qaeda's mission in Iraq while he was in jail. Clearly Iraq was a safehaven.
Abu Musab Zarqawi
A Jordanian, reported to be an expert in mixing poisons, Zarqawi was convicted in absentia in connection with plot to bomb tourist spots in Amman. Later described as a senior al-Qaida leader, he reportedly sought medical care and refuge in Iraq after being seriously injured during the war in Afghanistan. U.S. officials used his presence in Baghdad to argue that al-Qaida and Iraqi President Saddam Hussein are linked. But CIA Director George Tenet has said that Zarqawi's organization operates independently from al-Qaida, though it has received some funding from bin Laden's network.
Saddam Hussein offered asylum
Iraqi President Saddam Hussein has offered asylum to bin Laden, who openly supports Iraq against the Western powers.
Forgive me but I don't see that your link proves Saddam didn't offer Osama asylum or that Abu Musab al-Zarqawi didn't have links to al-Qaeda (which of course he did) or Iraq. If nothing else he could take refuge there.
I'm rushed. More later.
Amy said: “Silke, you know what, technically you're correct. I'll need to change that. As far as we know Saddam didn't "allow" or "not allow" al-Zarqawi. I may be right. Saddam supported al-Qaeda's mission in Iraq while he was in jail. Clearly Iraq was a safehaven.”
Yes, but not until after the invasion and what does that have to do with Zarqawi before the war? Remember, this was listed under your reasons for “WHY WE WENT TO WAR.” As stated in the Senate report, before the war Saddam was distrustful of al-Qa’ida and even actively pursued Zarqawi. Not only is your statement false, the exact opposite was true. Saddam wanted to capture Zarqawi.
Amy said: “Forgive me but I don't see that your link proves Saddam didn't offer Osama asylum or that Abu Musab al-Zarqawi didn't have links to al-Qaeda (which of course he did) or Iraq.”
I never said Zarqawi didn’t have links to al-Qaeda. I said Saddam Hussein did not allow him to be treated in Baghdad. As for the assertion that Saddam Hussein offered Osama bin Ladin asylum in Iraq, the fact that Hussein “was distrustful of al-Qa’ida and viewed Islamic extremists as a threat to his regime” and refused “all requests from al-Qa’ida to provide material or operational support” is pretty clear. I think the senate report is a more credible source than your 1999 AP article. This is the same article, by the way, that also states…“The Taliban did promise that bin Laden would not use Afghanistan as a staging arena for terrorist activities.”
Silke, I haven't had time to read through everything yet but in doing some unrelated research I found this:
Not the best source, but interesting nonetheless.
Amy, I’m not disputing the fact that Zarqawi was in Iraq. That should be clear from the statements I’ve cited. What I am disputing is your assertion that Saddam Hussein consented to this – which you listed as one of the reasons we went to war. He did not. Zarqawi used an alias to enter the country and Saddam Hussein attempted to locate and capture him. In addition, there is no evidence (other than an unsubstantiated report from an anonymous source in an already questionable article) that Saddam Hussein offered Osama bin Ladin asylum in Iraq.
It’s unfortunate that you are either unable or unwilling to correct the errors, since it detracts from the original point of this post – which I actually agree with. Woodward’s article was a cheap shot at President Bush and the war in Iraq.
Happy New Year, Amy! Blessings to you and yours.
I agree with you totally: I don't trust anything Woodword puts forth. He's obviously got his own agenda and as far as I can see, has taken stuff out of context in order to push it to his liking. As far as Abu Musab al Zarqawi and Saddam, I don't know enough about that to comment intelligently. The only thing I can say is I'm happy Saddam is a done deal, and I will be ecstatic when he's no longer the one of the main topics of discussion on the news. One thing I do know for sure: President Ford went one way, and Saddam went the other; never the two shall meet! :)
By the way, congratulations on the banning of a very disgusting person. He's so much more vile than most trolls I won't even refer to him as that. He posts on my site even knowing he won't get published, proving how pathetic he is for attention. I don't even read his comments anymore. All it takes for me to delete him is to see his name. Please forgive me for not warning you about this pos! For some reason I didn't think he would bother a sweetheart like you.
Silke, in pre-2003 Iraq hospitals were state run. Zarqawi went to Uday's hospital in Baghdad. It is very unlikely that someone of his stature could go to that hospital without being admitted.
Why did Zarqawi not run to Pakistan? Or Jordan his home country? If Saddam did not personally consent, he did by default. He was in concert with the objectives of Zarqawi. Again, Saddam was Sunni; al-Qaeda, including Osama and Zarqawi, are both sects of Sunni called Wahhabi. They were not enemies as say a Saddam and al-Sadr would be.
Again, after reading the Senate report, I don't ee that it opposes what I'm saying. If anything, I have a lot more sources to back me up.
I'm sure you realize I'm not saying Zarqawi's visit to Baghdad is a reason we went to war in Iraq, but rather it re-establishes a reasonable suspicion and link to his objective of terrorism in whatever form he was able to succeed at.
I went ahead and made a change in the original post about Saddam and Zarqawi.
;)
Silke, you might be interested in THIS.
Simply stated, this second series of reports is designed to point fingers in Washington and at the Administration. The conclusions in the reports were crafted with more partisan bias than we have witnessed in a long time in Congress. The “Phase II” investigation has turned the Senate Intelligence Committee, a committee initially designed to be the most bipartisan committee in the Senate, into a political playground stripped of its bipartisan power, and this fact has no gone unnoticed in the Intelligence Community.”
pg146 Phase II report
•18% of the docs reviewed=a conclusion?
UNACCEPTABLE
•based on interrogations of detainees by FBI?
UNACCEPTABLE
•based on the word of Saddam, Aziz, al Tikriti, and Hijazi?
UNACCEPTABLE
This phase II report is more of a compromise to get it off the table before the midterms. Democrats wanted it out so they can scream no ties to the people who won't take the time to read it. Reps want it out so they don't have to hear the rhetoric about them blocking it anymore. Nope. Don't accept the headlines. Read the report, do some research, and the ties are very clear.